Wapsi Square Forum

Rock out Atsali, rock out!!!! That look!!!!

Ok, I'm confused. I heard mention by someone that the art piece week is for Pablo to work on the next story. But, um, what about finishing the last story? Didn't Tina want to talk to Monica? Are we skipping that? I don't understand.

Atsali has clearly been digging through Mom's old high school stuff.

TheCollector wrote:Ok, I'm confused. I heard mention by someone that the art piece week is for Pablo to work on the next story. But, um, what about finishing the last story? Didn't Tina want to talk to Monica? Are we skipping that? I don't understand.

I'm guessing that there will be a location-jump before the story is picked up again. Monica had asked Tina whether she was free for their discussion "after work"... which sorta implies to me that the talk may take place somewhere other than Mucho Mocha.

We may or may not see an intermediate arc, involving other characters in another location, before Monica and Tina grab focus again. If there is such an interlude, we'll probably come back to the "What's Happening To Me/Us?" talk after Tina has spent some time bringing Monica (and Bud? and Atsali?) up to speed on what she's been experiencing lately.

Pablo doesn't always completely wrap up one story before starting a whole new one... any more than our own "real world" lives do. It ain't like The Simpsons!

Ok - something I noticed yesterday and it's the same in today's art.

Atsali's irises - they appear to be crescent shape in both pages.

Is is an art style? A representation of the light source (reflecting & obscuring part of the irises).

Or is it a trait of Sirens? Perhaps in certain forms - or emotions? - their irises change?

I am glad Paul is sticking to the band names he is. Some of the others would send a very bad message. Like 'Cheap Trick!'. lol.

Though AC/DC has its own connotation.

TheCollector wrote:Ok, I'm confused. I heard mention by someone that the art piece week is for Pablo to work on the next story. But, um, what about finishing the last story? Didn't Tina want to talk to Monica? Are we skipping that? I don't understand.

I agree. The pinups are nice occasionally, but I vaguely remember there was a storyline at one time. It would be nice to get back to it. A series of drawings that basically just emphasize one character's boobs (whether it is Monica or Atsali) gets tiresome.

davids4250 wrote:I agree. The pinups are nice occasionally, but I vaguely remember there was a storyline at one time. It would be nice to get back to it. A series of drawings that basically just emphasize one character's boobs (whether it is Monica or Atsali) gets tiresome.

Well, I think I see in play here an ancient, honorable, and very important literary tradition... one which predates the printing press and probably dates back to tales told around the cave campfire. It's easily expressed: artists and storytellers have to eat, just like everybody else does.

Storytellers in the marketplace would pass the hat, and occasionally pause and await the arrival of the next few jingling coins before continuing. Musicians busk, playing in public or at a coffeehouse in return for voluntary contributions by their audience... and if not rewarded, they move on to a different location.

Paul, I think, follows this same tradition when he does an occasional run of pin-ups and specials. When they're auctioned on eBay they seem to go for several times what a typical daily strip earns (and with the hand coloring may take several times more effort to complete). I imagine that some of them sell a goodly few prints, too. All in all I suspect that they're a significant part of what makes it possible for Pablo to do Wapsi Square as he does, making it freely available to all without a subscription... quite an impressive achievement, IMHO.

There's another important artistic tradition: "Always leave them wanting more." So, a story-arc hiatus of a few days may be serving several purposes.

More power to 'im, I say!

zachariah wrote:I am glad Paul is sticking to the band names he is. Some of the others would send a very bad message. Like 'Cheap Trick!'. lol.

Twisted Sister?

Dee Snider is still around...

((the following is NOT for those with a nervous disposition!!!)

well you could go more extreme...

Well for me, I will honestly say that when I got the print from Ebay it was meant to be Original Art, now we have reprints of it? It sort of cheapens the Original Art concept. I know there is going to be a difference, but how much really?

illiad wrote:((the following is NOT for those with a nervous disposition!!!)

well you could go more extreme...

Heh. you want something that'll =really= rewire your brain? Bust THIS loose...

Cyberpawz wrote:Well for me, I will honestly say that when I got the print from Ebay it was meant to be Original Art, now we have reprints of it? It sort of cheapens the Original Art concept. I know there is going to be a difference, but how much really?

Because people that spend a fortune on an original painting from an auction (say, Van Gogh's Sunflowers) are cheated because someone can buy a print of it at a local frame shop?

Dave wrote:

davids4250 wrote:I agree. The pinups are nice occasionally, but I vaguely remember there was a storyline at one time. It would be nice to get back to it. A series of drawings that basically just emphasize one character's boobs (whether it is Monica or Atsali) gets tiresome.

Well, I think I see in play here an ancient, honorable, and very important literary tradition... one which predates the printing press and probably dates back to tales told around the cave campfire. It's easily expressed: artists and storytellers have to eat, just like everybody else does.

Storytellers in the marketplace would pass the hat, and occasionally pause and await the arrival of the next few jingling coins before continuing. Musicians busk, playing in public or at a coffeehouse in return for voluntary contributions by their audience... and if not rewarded, they move on to a different location.

Paul, I think, follows this same tradition when he does an occasional run of pin-ups and specials. When they're auctioned on eBay they seem to go for several times what a typical daily strip earns (and with the hand coloring may take several times more effort to complete). I imagine that some of them sell a goodly few prints, too. All in all I suspect that they're a significant part of what makes it possible for Pablo to do Wapsi Square as he does, making it freely available to all without a subscription... quite an impressive achievement, IMHO.

There's another important artistic tradition: "Always leave them wanting more." So, a story-arc hiatus of a few days may be serving several purposes.

More power to 'im, I say!

There's also the fact that Paul usually uses the "filler week pinup" time to reset his brain and gear up for the next big story arc. Have patience. Experience shows it's worth it.

Cyberpawz wrote:Well for me, I will honestly say that when I got the print from Ebay it was meant to be Original Art, now we have reprints of it? It sort of cheapens the Original Art concept. I know there is going to be a difference, but how much really?

What you got off E-Bay was not a print. It was an original work, hand drawn, inked and colored. Paul doesn't sell "prints" on E-Bay. What you now own is the original.

Paul is an artist who makes his living, supporting himself and his family, through his art. Artists often sell prints and lithographs and copies of original works to make money, but they are just that, copies, sold at a fraction of the originals price.

Be happy you have it, because if I had Paul's talent and style, I would be to selfish to sell it.

Cyberpawz wrote:Well for me, I will honestly say that when I got the print from Ebay it was meant to be Original Art, now we have reprints of it? It sort of cheapens the Original Art concept. I know there is going to be a difference, but how much really?

You get what you pay for... I purchased a print of 'Girl on Fire', a pirate Monica print. I know, for example, that I would never have been able to afford the original artwork so a print was perfect for me. Those who can buy original artwork and are satisfied knowing that it is an original piece. Those who can't, pick up prints and are satisfied they have a print. It's not a matter of one being less valuable than the other, rather the ability to have a certain piece of artwork at all. To me, prints don't lessen the value of an original... and so many more people are happy. The singular original piece will always have a greater value than a print.

EDIT: I received Girl on fire as a gift from a close friend... I was using the purchase analogy to make a point... but the feeling is the same. I know he wouldn't have been able to afford the original either... but I'm just as happy to have received it.

The man has to eat. And, as I have seen elsewhere, pay for medical bills for his son.

Boxilar wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:Well for me, I will honestly say that when I got the print from Ebay it was meant to be Original Art, now we have reprints of it? It sort of cheapens the Original Art concept. I know there is going to be a difference, but how much really?

What you got off E-Bay was not a print. It was an original work, hand drawn, inked and colored. Paul doesn't sell "prints" on E-Bay. What you now own is the original.

Paul is an artist who makes his living, supporting himself and his family, through his art. Artists often sell prints and lithographs and copies of original works to make money, but they are just that, copies, sold at a fraction of the originals price.

Be happy you have it, because if I had Paul's talent and style, I would be to selfish to sell it.

Agreed on all points, Boxilar. What Paul does, is very common practice among artists, and it's well-supported by law and tradition. My wife does the same thing (on a rather smaller scale than Paul does). Some artists go even further, and do multiple originals of a particular piece of art. One famous example is "Scream"... Munch did three (I think) originals of it, and there have been $DEITY-knows-how-many prints sold over the decades. Hundreds of thousands? Millions? One of the originals was auctioned recently... go look up the price!

I looked up the law on this some time back. In most jurisdictions, when you buy an original artwork (even one done at your request) you're buying that one piece of physical art... but not buying any rights to the image, such as the copyright. The artist retains the copyright and other commercial rights... s/he has the right to make and sell further originals or prints, and you do not. If you want to buy art as an exclusive original (so that the artist gives up the right to make more) or if you want the right to make and sell copies yourself, you can... but you must negotiate this with the artist, and probably expect to pay more for these additional rights.

Paul has had a "buy a print of this strip" feature up on the Wapsi Square website for as long as I've been reading the strip... longer than I can recall him running regular eBay auctions. It's no secret and I don't think it ever has been.

Personally, I have no problem with what Paul does. Quite the opposite: when I ordered a commission from him a couple of years ago I told him right up front it was fine if he sold prints, and I was pleased to learn sometime later that the print sale went well. I've got the original, it's beautiful, and that's what matters to me. Knowing that the print sales help support Paul and his family, help make possible the production of Wapsi Square, and gave other fans the ability to own and enjoy a good physical copy of a lovely drawing that they clearly desired... well, those points are tasty gravy!

The prints Paul sells are of very good quality... I believe they're individually-printed giclee (professional high-resolution inkjet) on good paper. But, they're just not the same as getting the original hand-inked, hand-colored drawing on nice stiff Bristol stock.

(And, let's be honest here. Anybody who wants a quickie adequate-quality print of any of Paul's strips could make one him/herself on the nearest color printer from the JPEG on the website. It's impossible to prevent this. There is no way Paul could guarantee an exclusive status of any Wapsi Square strip... he could only offer this for unique commissions which were never to be published on the website.)

Dave wrote: In most jurisdictions, when you buy an original artwork (even one done at your request) you're buying that one piece of physical art... but not buying any rights to the image, such as the copyright. The artist retains the copyright and other commercial rights... s/he has the right to make and sell further originals or prints, and you do not. If you want to buy art as an exclusive original (so that the artist gives up the right to make more) or if you want the right to make and sell copies yourself, you can... but you must negotiate this with the artist, and probably expect to pay more for these additional rights.

Indeed. And for yet another tweak: I have some pencils I "commissioned" from a friend of mine. The concepts (characters, apparel, poses, etc) are mine, but the work is his. Neither of us can make copies without either getting permission from the other or infringing on the other's copyright!

Cyberpawz wrote:Well for me, I will honestly say that when I got the print from Ebay it was meant to be Original Art, now we have reprints of it? It sort of cheapens the Original Art concept. I know there is going to be a difference, but how much really?

I've got paintings and artwork from several comic book artists, including those that were used as templates for the covers of comic books themselves. Hundreds and thousands of copies. The people who have those have *copies*. *I* have the original. The one and ONLY original.

There's a difference.